Conclusion: We looked at how life sciences librarians feel about the journal cancellation process since 2009 in the context of more readily available data and an established tradition of faculty consultation. An interesting realization was that even with consultation of faculty and more and better data, many fundamental issues in canceling journals have not changed. Our study found that faculty input is one of the most important components of the information gathering process during journal cancellation projects. In spite of a greater ability now to acquire more and better data concerning usage, price, and impact of journals, the desire to consult with faculty for their perspectives, preferences, and judgments is just as strong as the need for more quantitative, concrete data. In fact, journals supporting faculty research were of higher priority for librarians than those supporting the curriculum. Acquiring faculty input is not without difficulty as noted by comments from survey respondents, but some of the obstacles are library-generated such as when cancellation projects are inconveniently timed or have very narrow windows for completion. Even though faculty feedback is not always helpful or without controversy, librarians would much rather have faculty involvement in the journal cancellation process than not. Our survey also found that data was sometimes a problematic source of information for decision-making even though data was valued by more librarians than personal input from any source (librarians, students or faculty). While the majority stated that they sometimes had what they needed, follow-up questions revealed a host of complications that made getting and using the data difficult. Some librarians could not easily turn data into decisions. Only 41% (11) of respondents indicated that there was no additional data they would have liked to have had (see Appendix, Table 4). Usage data in particular elicited comments about accuracy throughout the survey, while others found that they frequently did not have easy access to the data they needed to make decisions. Both third party vendors, as well as internal processes were cited as barriers, and this is an area for potential future research to uncover exactly what best practices might help alleviate these concerns. Guidelines were common and considered largely successful in the institutions where they were implemented, while librarians in the institutions that did not have guidelines were equally appreciative of their absence. In addition, in about half of the cases, librarians were unable to cancel titles in journal aggregators and Big Deal packages. In instances when these journals were available for cancellation, they were sometimes, but not always canceled. Despite these challenges, librarians were confident overall that the best decisions were made. As much as technology has changed the context of journal cancellations, the process still boils down to librarians making decisions in the midst of many challenges. Future studies could examine the experience of librarians in other disciplines to better understand the role of the librarians subject areas. In addition, it would be interesting to conduct in-depth interviews with librarians involved in cancellation decisions to gain a better understanding of the process. Having examined the roles of faculty consultation and data in the cancellation process, we hope that our study will inform the development of best practices that will address the concerns identified by librarians and incorporate their successful processes.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 10:05:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015